... is a 13 year old design that according to its manufacturer's web site "Is not recommended for new product design".

Please, before you believe in the mantra that old products are always worse than the new ones, LISTEN to one of those "not recommended" true multibit DAC's. They are not recommended because of price and availability, not because the new sigma-delta are better sounding.

For example, AD1861, PCM1704 are still available. Of course, in the case of PCM1704K (24 bit, selected K) for $70, of course is not 'recommended' for el-cheapo DVD players of today.

... is a 13 year old design that according to its manufacturer's web site "Is not recommended for new product design".

Please, before you believe in the mantra that old products are always worse than the new ones, LISTEN to one of those "not recommended" true multibit DAC's.

Listen to products with R-2R DACs? Been there done that.

I never said they necessarily sound bad. I'm willing to stipulate that they are, like many $1 DAC chips, sonically transparent.

Read what I said, not what you may want to feel. I simply eacted to the fact that an obsolete and probably overpriced part is being used with no possible audible benefits.

If would be an audiophile myth if someone claimed that a classic R-2R ladder network DAC sounded different or better from a good Sigma-Delta part costing only a fraction as much, but I don't see anybody doing that.

The "$1 DAC" are always sigma-delta and are anything but "transparent". They have their flaws, recognized even by manufacturers. Fast-signal (music programs) behavior for them is way different than steady-state sinusoidal measurements shown in data sheets. Noise modulation of actual signal viewed in time-domain is the key for understanding that.
Sure, for some ears, it makes no difference. Probably mp3's are sounding just fine to you too. Same as for a color blind guy it makes no difference if the grass is green or red.

The "$1 DAC" are always sigma-delta and are anything but "transparent".

That's a non sequitor, since sigma-delta DACs implement a technology that puts as much of the DAC's operation as possible into the digital domain, and thus makes sonic performance far less dependent on other implementation details. A R-2R DAC with missing codes or or linearity problems can easily happen due to errrors in design, processing or QC, but with sigma-delta that is all but impossible.

Quote:

They have their flaws, recognized even by manufacturers. Fast-signal (music programs) behavior for them is way different than steady-state sinusoidal measurements shown in data sheets.

That DAC chip data sheets contain only steady-state sinusoidal measurements is belied by the first audio DAC data sheet that Google pulled up for me:

Those are related to impulse response which is system response to an obviously non-sinusoidal waveform. They exist in many DAC data sheets. Your claim is in flames!

Your general claim that steady-state measurements fail to show an important audible failing runs contrary to accepted technology such as the various forms of the Fourier transform.

Quote:

Noise modulation of actual signal viewed in time-domain is the key for understanding that.

Please substantiate this. You are claiming the existence of a problem that were it to exist would be readily measurable. You are invited to use a technical paper, spec sheet or your own private measurements to support your rather exceptional claim with evidence of an artifact that is actually audible and not just some microscopic laboratory freak.

R-2R—The oldest and still the “cleanest” conversion method
• String—A tapped resistor string
• Delta Sigma—(One bit) Trades resolution in amplitude for resolution in time. Requires a system clock that is faster than the bit data

R-2R—The oldest and still the “cleanest” conversion method
• String—A tapped resistor string
• Delta Sigma—(One bit) Trades resolution in amplitude for resolution in time. Requires a system clock that is faster than the bit data

See the higher settling time of generic sigma-delta converters. It's part of the conversion, no way around it.

The above is an obvious misrepresentation of the cited document. The document is looking at all DACs for all purposes, and among other things makes the point that say delta-sigma is not the best technology for digitizing high resolution fast refresh video.

It in fact does not recommend the use of R-2R DACs for audio.

The reason why settling time specs for Sigma-Delta DAcs looks so mediocre is the fact that they are generally have so much more resolution. It recommends the use of Sigma-Delta for audio.

I never said they necessarily sound bad. I'm willing to stipulate that they are, like many $1 DAC chips, sonically transparent.

Read what I said, not what you may want to feel. I simply eacted to the fact that an obsolete and probably overpriced part is being used with no possible audible benefits.

If would be an audiophile myth if someone claimed that a classic R-2R ladder network DAC sounded different or better from a good Sigma-Delta part costing only a fraction as much, but I don't see anybody doing that.[Emphasis added.]

Some are claiming audible differences, including designers/manufacturers, though I've not read of any reliable evidence to support those claims:

I never said they necessarily sound bad. I'm willing to stipulate that they are, like many $1 DAC chips, sonically transparent.

Read what I said, not what you may want to feel. I simply eacted to the fact that an obsolete and probably overpriced part is being used with no possible audible benefits.

If would be an audiophile myth if someone claimed that a classic R-2R ladder network DAC sounded different or better from a good Sigma-Delta part costing only a fraction as much, but I don't see anybody doing that.[Emphasis added.]

Some are claiming audible differences, including designers/manufacturers, though I've not read of any reliable evidence to support those claims:

Because those "smart" individuals are comparing DSD with another DSD...
PCM signals fed into a delta-sigma DAC will be converted internally to DSD before the analog I/V conversion. So they will be plagued by the same issues.
You need to hear a PCM signal converted with a multibit ADC (like those in HDCD consoles) and reproduced via a multibit DAC.

I recently changed my digital set up to a MHDT Havana Balanced Dac, which is a tubed, non-oversampling Dac... I'm pretty sure it would measure horribly, but the sound is amazing. Honestly, the first time I've ever had a digital front end that sounds close to my analog set up. What I'm trying to point out is that just because something measures really, really well, doesn't mean that it sounds "right" to YOU.

I recently changed my digital set up to a MHDT Havana Balanced Dac, which is a tubed, non-oversampling Dac... I'm pretty sure it would measure horribly, but the sound is amazing. Honestly, the first time I've ever had a digital front end that sounds close to my analog set up. What I'm trying to point out is that just because something measures really, really well, doesn't mean that it sounds "right" to YOU/.

That much is true. If you think a turntable sounds "right," then it will take a crappy DAC output to also sound, er, uhm, "right."

Hmm... crappy or not, if live music recording like, well, live, then I'd take crappy any day of the week. How do I know what the recording sound like when it was performed live? I recorded and mastered it when I owned a recording studio...

So you're saying you made a bad quality recording, then you needed to counter that by having a poor quality DAC in the playback chain?

I realize that you're probably only trying to be funny, but there's certain things you just don't do. Telling an audio engineer that their recording sucks is kind of telling a mom that their kid is ugly...

Obviously, we're not going to agree to digital playback no matter what, and that's of course ok.

Because those "smart" individuals are comparing DSD with another DSD...
PCM signals fed into a delta-sigma DAC will be converted internally to DSD before the analog I/V conversion. So they will be plagued by the same issues.

What issues might those be?

They only matter if they are audible. Where are the well-done listening tests demonstrating audibility?

Quote:

You need to hear a PCM signal converted with a multibit ADC (like those in HDCD consoles) and reproduced via a multibit DAC.

All you need is converters that meet certain fairly reasonable and in modern times attainable technical standards.

There is no magic involved in multibit, delta-sigma, or DSD conversion. Final results are what matters not the details of how they are achieved. As long as dynamic range of 100 dB or greater, response over the normal audio band within 0.1 dB, and reasonable phase response are obtained, unconditional sonic transparency is guaranteed. Those kind of results can be obtained by any of those 3 means. It then comes down to costs, and price/performance currently gives the nod to delta-sigma.

your source will always be a limiting factor and it's at the head of the chain.. +1 for a good cd player over transport + dac

The original electronic source is usually a microphone in some venue or recording studio. That is the head of the electronic chain. Ahead of that, you have the room the recording is made in. Just about any good CD player can outperform both of those items.

Because those "smart" individuals are comparing DSD with another DSD...
PCM signals fed into a delta-sigma DAC will be converted internally to DSD before the analog I/V conversion. So they will be plagued by the same issues.
You need to hear a PCM signal converted with a multibit ADC (like those in HDCD consoles) and reproduced via a multibit DAC.

Mebbe but that is unrealistic and irrelevant for the typical consumer, even in the high end market.